Like with bin Laden, it is far better that these sort of leaders are subject to a "Kill, Do Not Capture" order than the wet dream of the Left, Euro human rights sorts, and progressive Jews of the ACLU that ONLY a half decade to decade long "due process" happen in a Civilian courtroom.

We still have the 9/11 mastermind waiting over a decade from 9/11 for his deluxe civilian trial. The trials of Slobodan Miloscevic and Saddam Husssein energized their supporters and rallied their opposition. Which cost Bosnian lives and lives of Iraqis and Americans in the face of Sunni outrage that built up over Saddam's Shiite kangaroo court.

The only exception is if we want to capture to interrogate high ranking enemy. But the Left, Euro human rights sort, and progressive Jews of the ACLU say we cannot interrogate.

You kill a Qaddaffi, Dictator Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu get executed ...Binnie gets whacked..The lawyers get less money, but you also get a clean decisive break from the past, and can move forward without The Great Trial!! hanging over everyones head.

Does that mean Rule of Law and civilian legal systems are Not Supreme?

m stone said...Without question, Obama will take credit for his death.

==============Well, lets just say Bush made some idiot mistakes in Iraq that Obama's advisors learned from -

Like "200,000 heroes with boots on the ground" doing the work, left both the noble Sunni and noble Shiites free to hate America. No "heroes with boots on the ground in Libya", no casualties, greatly lowered costs and blood shed by Americans.Squandering one trillion 600 billion in treasure and 40,000 bloody casualties - versus 1 billion and zero US casualties.The Green Zone, the Bremer Decisions, the idiot call to instruct the Iraqis into how to build their new Israel-friendly, Westernized nation up from scratch - vs. letting the Libyans make the calls..

After that pile of stupidity, at least we learned and applied a new strategy to Libya. 1. You don't need 200,000 hero targets with boots on the ground to "liberate" the noble angry natives that blame the foreigner for anything that fails to meet their expectations.2. You cannot fight a war of freedom and idependence with the locals given the luxury of just sitting around and waiting for it to be handed over to them.3. You don't really need "heroes with boots on the ground" in most military matters. They are hugely expensive, take casualties in droves, and the only reason to "hold the ground" is if you want to take the land and settle American civilians on it, or establish lines to better protect the lives and logistics of the ground pounders.

Give Obama and his people credit - his domestic policies are nothing but ruin - but his approach to taking out bad guys is far smarter than what the Bushies or human rights advocates in the past accomplished.

"Give Obama and his people credit - his domestic policies are nothing but ruin - but his approach to taking out bad guys is far smarter than what the Bushies or human rights advocates in the past accomplished."

I don't know which is more impressive: you validating your vote for Obama, or your sudden, willful naivete. Your conclusion is unwarranted. Notwithstanding the utter lack of US security interests in Libya after its nuclear disarmament (accomplished by Bush, you should note), ten years from now, Iraq will almost certainly be in much better shape than either Egypt and Libya.

John Lynch said... As I said earlier in the Uganda thread, if the objective was to remove Gaddaffy then the war is a success.

But, what was the reason that he had to be removed? Isn't the leader of North Korea just as bad of a man? Should we try and kill him too? Or, should be just try and kill leaders who have no way of fighting back?

DADvocate said...We all must admit the leading from behind strategy worked quite well.

==============It did. 1,600 billion in Iraq vs 1 billion in Libya. 42,000 casualties in Iraq vs. 0 in Libya. America hated by both Sunni and Shia and not likely to live long in country without a security detail vs. being welcomed as a contributor to what the Libyans themselves accomplished.

The other approach that worked well was the smarter Bush, the older one, who hated Neocons, and assembled a true coalition he led that went in and out fast in my Gulf War days. And we actually ended up Making Money off that one, vs. the squandering of people and resources his son and his Neocons accomplished.

Leading from behind is not the only option. You can lead, but it is a Nixon vs. LBJ, a Clinton or HW Bush vs. Dubya approach.

"But, what was the reason that he had to be removed? Isn't the leader of North Korea just as bad of a man? Should we try and kill him too? Or, should be just try and kill leaders who have no way of fighting back?"

Kim Jong Il is self-evidently worse, far worse, a threat to US security interest than Qaddaffi.

But because weak bullies look for easy outs to punch up their street cred, Qaddaffi made the hit list.

Kim Jong Il will have to kill a million residents of Seoul before this president would act...after seeking permission from our lenders in Peking.

OK, you can count this as a success for Obama. That makes two...That said, if Bush had done something like this, the libs would be pointing to all those African nationals that were murdered ad tortured by the Libyan rebels and say that we were complicit in genocide.

The way I see it, the US has a shit list. These are people and governments that are our enemies (by their own choice- the US isn't that hard to get along with.) When we have an opportunity to get them, we should. When it's not practical, we should wait. Long term, this seems to explain US foreign policy.

Gadaffy has caused us all kinds of problems and murdered many of our citizens. The only thing that got him to stop was the threat of force after 9/11.

Our shit list is pretty short. It includes real enemies, not just people who disagree with us. As you say, it also doesn't include the many awful dictatorships in the world. It only includes those that attack us.

France isn't on it, Iran is. Simply opposing US foreign policy aims isn't enough. I'd also include North Korea and Syria (the Axis of Shit?.) Iraq used to be on it. It's hard to get on the list- you have to kill a lot of people.

"This is strange watching people trying to say a dead Gaddaffy is a bad thing."

No one is shedding any tears for Qaddaffi.

It's the obvious lack of US security interests, the gross abuse of the constitutional process (or can you point me to a public vote of Congressional authorization?), and the utterly transparent political play by our failing, affirmative action president to look accomplished at something, anything that appears remotely presidential.

Had a Republican done this, the streets would have been filled with a dirty rabble breaking windows, setting cars afire and defecating on street corners as they did in protest of the US action in Iraq.

And everyone knows it, no matter how disingenuous one's comments might be to the contrary.

Here's TIME magazine on Saddam's hanging:"Instead, it is being remembered by the sounds heard on the widely disseminated video of Saddam's final moments — Shi'ite partisans chanting sectarian slogans and praising the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr. Saddam's rule has relatively few defenders in Iraq and beyond, yet the serious flaws in his trial and execution gave many the impression of mob justice rather than the rule of law.

There's a US security interest, which is why Presidents since Reagan have been dealing with Libya as an enemy and a supporter of terrorism. There's also oil. That's an interest, too.

I've never liked the War Powers Resolution, so its death at the hands of a Democratic President is sweet irony to me. Not all military interventions need Congressional approval. That's been true since the 1790s.

This wasn't invading Iraq or Afghanistan, and it wasn't committing a large enough force to be problematic for the future. President Obama's embrace of John Yoo's views on Presidential authority is overdue but correct.

As to the hypocrisy of Democrats, I agree completely. Pretty much every principle they had about the use of military force going into 2008 has been violated by a Democratic President without much complaint. Watching them do the mental gymnastics to cope with cognitive dissonance is bizarre.

Soft power. Flaccid. War as "kinetic action." Worthy because it was done not for US security interests, but for "humanitarian reasons."

Yet Syria kills thousands more than Libya did, and those humanitarian reasons don't provoke kinetic action lead from behind because the risks, obviously, are far greater than they were in Libya.

The Dali Obama needed a political success - the leadership here was giving the reelection campaign and its pimps something to talk about rather than the endless $1 trillion increase in debt annually, and the equally endless loss of 400+K jobs per week.

John Lynch said... As to the hypocrisy of Democrats, I agree completely. Pretty much every principle they had about the use of military force going into 2008 has been violated by a Democratic President without much complaint. Watching them do the mental gymnastics to cope with cognitive dissonance is bizarre.

Qaddafi was not America’s friend, but the vision of U.S. troops pulling Saddam Hussein from a spider hole in Iraq did persuade him that having America as an enemy was not smart. So he gave up his drive to develop nuclear weapons and coughed up useful intelligence on how that project had been organized. He stopped financing terrorism — as far as we’re aware. He did continue oppressing his own people. Both the Bush and the Obama administrations pretty much gave him a pass on that.

If the Great Arab Revolt — “Arab Spring” is a hopeful, not descriptive term — ends up only removing Qaddafi and, from neighboring Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, a despot who was, nonetheless, a reasonably pliant client of the U.S., and if Iran’s theocrats remain in power and manage to save the Assad dynasty in Syria while continuing to use Hezbollah to control Lebanon and sponsoring Hamas in Gaza, the lesson will be clear: It is more dangerous to be America’s ally than its enemy.

Such a lesson will carry long-term strategic consequences. If there are strategic planners in the current administration, now would be a good time for them to start worrying.

Looked at another way, Obama is cementing an activist US foreign policy. We're still imperial, we still use force, we kill our enemies no matter where in the world they are.

Sure, he's trying to find a cheaper and more efficient way to do it (drones and opportunistic local allies) but it's the same old thing. I doubt he'll admit it, but that's what he's doing. No matter who is President, we're going to remain the big empire on the planet for the foreseeable future.

"Obama is cementing an activist US foreign policy. We're still imperial, we still use force, we kill our enemies no matter where in the world they are."

Only if the opportunity presents itself with small to no risks; and the political rewards are disproportionate to the risks.

Qaddafi had the unenviable role of being a long-time bete noir for the US, disarmed by Bush and regionally isolated with no ability to punch back. He was the perfect punching bag for our pussy president: no risk, politically or militarily.

Near as I can tell, no other enemies of the US fit that profile so neatly, if at all. All the other bad guys are much tougher outs than Qaddafi was.

Yes. That's why the GOP candidate had better come with serious foreign policy experience. Since candidates without much experience are currently in vogue, though, I'll settle for serious foreign policy principles.

After four years of Obama, we need to be able to protect ourselves internationally AND we need to stop the spending.

"deborah said...Cedarford, what is your opinion of Obama's management of Af/Pak?"*********Obama was sort of trapped by his rhetoric that Afghanistan was the real problem, not Iraq...then getting trapped by generals inc. McCain and Bush's pet hero, Gen Petraeus - into a new Surge for the noble Afghan Freedom Lovers. While bin Laden got whacked, Bush and McCains "dear friend Ahmed Karzai" runs the most corrupt regime on earth outside black Africa, and the people have no inclination at all to back their government or Americans over the Taliban.It is now America's longest war. Neglected while we were nation-building Iraq. It's people aren't worth dying for or spending another cent on -but we made commitments to the Karzai kleptocrats in Bush's day, then under Obama's pledge to listen to his generals. So we could not just pull out without US credibility taking a big hit.Sort of like the bag of shit LBJ handed Nixon. But Nixon was more effective winding down Vietnam than Obama has been with Bush's bag of shit. Nixon was a better leader than Dubya or Obama.

2) Not sure who is going to be replacing him. Isn’t one of the leaders of the opposition (or am I thinking of Egypt) also one of the guys supporting the insurgents in Iraq? So we could just be replacing one enemy with another.

3) Obama’s victory lap should be over by Thanksgiving and people will pretty much have forgotten about this by Christmas.

Our involvement in Libyia did help Europe with its oil supply problem but I dont think that is going to do anything for us.

Now we have armed "advisors" in Uganda--What is our stragegic purpose there? and why havent we intervened in NORK, Syria, Belorus where the bad gus are just as murderous.

I see nothing that the US did that was noteworthy in Libyia; the rebels took care of Q man on their own. Remains to be seen what happens next in North Africa. We are now dealing with devil we dont know rather than devil we did know.

Edutcher--one must need to pick one's enemies carefully--some of those bastards may fight back--We can weigh Mr Obama's strategic success against his failures--say: how is that Afghan thing going? And how are we going with Mr Amhadinejad?

Tim - "Yet Syria kills thousands more than Libya did, and those humanitarian reasons don't provoke kinetic action lead from behind because the risks, obviously, are far greater than they were in Libya."

================The thinking with Libya is that it is a strategic oil interest for both the US and Europe, as is Algeria. Outide the Gulf and likely to be stable with no strategic chokepoints.How many people a dictator kills is not a driver for invasion, or we would have had WWIII with Mao. And the cry "He kills his own people!!" is one of the more stupid things among the many Dubya ever said. OF COURSE dictators kill their own people...better than than invading and killing people of a different nation!

Syria is not in our vital interest. Sure, the Zionists would love us to go in because a war to topple Assad would be in their vital interest. But contrary to the wishes of the AIPAC, the Neocons, and the Christian fundies - Israel is not our 51st state and try as they might, they just can't gin up the Syria war drums loud enough.

But because weak bullies look for easy outs to punch up their street cred, Qaddaffi made the hit list.

Kim Jong Il will have to kill a million residents of Seoul before this president would act...after seeking permission from our lenders in Peking."

1. Recognize that your necon fantasies of invading N Korea and saving the noble NORKs rests on 1st accepting that 1.5 to 2 million S Koreas would die in the heavy artillery and missile barrage that would fall south of the Border and include HE, gas, and biological cagent warheads...even before you fret about the 3-4 nukes.2. Because of that and other factors, we have a general understanding that we would only use military force on a massive scale on the Korean peninsula if we, S Korea, or Japan were hit with intial, massive aggression from the NORKs. China and Russia accept this, and the only way we could use logistics and forces in Japan, S Korea is under those circumstances.3. Kim Il Jong KILLS HIS OWN PEOPLE!! - BFD. Too bad for them, but we will not start another major war of nation-building. The costs in money and casualties would dwarf anything Iraq cost us.

Hoosier--I have absolutely no problem if, in fact, our foreign policy is to hunt down as whack bad guys--One good thing that came out of this is the gutting of the war powers act which was bad law to start with. If we are to be in the business of committing small numbers of special ops guys to act has hunter killer teams I am all for it. Very cost effective. And it does send a powerful message to petty tyrants. I am not sure, however, it sends any message to larger scale tyrants.

C4, Libya, at peak, supplies less than 1% of US oil imports. As far as this line of debate goes, it's Europe's oil so they would have had to talk us into doing it on their behalf for that reason.

As far as the "killing their own people" rationale, I'm not suggesting it's a reason for going in. I'm suggesting that if you look at all the reasons the administration jumped into this particularly little brushfire, they set the bar at such a point that it can also be applied to Syria...yet we didn't so much as kinetic one military at Bashar.

C4: last I looked we do not import a lot of oil from the ME--about 19 percent of which Libyian oil was minicule--better we go after the godless canadians who is our major oil supplier. We helped pull europe out of an oil problem.

That said, it's nice to know that people like G man and causcecus are gone.

Edutcher--one must need to pick one's enemies carefully--some of those bastards may fight back--We can weigh Mr Obama's strategic success against his failures--say: how is that Afghan thing going? And how are we going with Mr Amhadinejad?

"Recognize that your necon fantasies of invading N Korea and saving the noble NORKs rests on 1st accepting that 1.5 to 2 million S Koreas would die in the heavy artillery and missile barrage that would fall south of the Border and include HE, gas, and biological cagent warheads...even before you fret about the 3-4 nukes."

Recognizing I'm violating my own policy to engage with self-proclaimed anti-Semites, I've no such fantasies, asshole. A simple, plain reading of what I wrote only speaks to the fact our pussy president transparently pursued an easy out for political gain, which becomes transparently obvious to the much more difficult AND much more necessary, from a security point of view (presupposing that US involvement in Libya was pursued from a security need, which is the primary, necessary test to validate any US military action).

That you read any neo-con fantasies into my statement says much more about your own paranoid view of the world than my supposed support for any such action against the NoKor regime.

".. Hoosier--I have absolutely no problem if, in fact, our foreign policy is to hunt down as whack bad guys--.."

Well I on the other hand am a tad bit more if an isolationist. After Iraq, I'm at the point where I could care less how.brutal they are provided they don't start any shit with us.

I can gurantee that inside of a year if two, Libya will be run by some new strongman or Islamic government and will be right back to hating our guts.

The problem I have with liberals like garage is their principled opposition to Iraq because no connection to 9/11 and no imminent threat but then are avid cheerleaders over Libya soley cause it was done on the cheap.

"How many people a dictator kills is not a driver for invasion, or we would have had WWIII with Mao. And the cry "He kills his own people!!" is one of the more stupid things among the many Dubya ever said. OF COURSE dictators kill their own people...better than than invading and killing people of a different nation!"

Dear God, but you are an idiot. The fact is, this is exactly the rational your pussy president used for our action in Libya. Granted, it was all the way back in March, but he did say about US action in Libya: "This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Lots of talk by the Dali-Obama about US security interests and the need to protect the oil supply there...

Roger J. said...C4: last I looked we do not import a lot of oil from the ME--about 19 percent of which Libyian oil was minicule--better we go after the godless canadians who is our major oil supplier. We helped pull europe out of an oil problem.

===============Yes and no, Roger. I understand we may only get X oil from a country, and if X is a small amount it isn't the end of the world to us. But at the same time, it is a global commodity and a shortage to one part of the world instantly means speculators from NYC to Tokyo jack up the price. And a sustained shortage in one area from their main suppliers means we eventually face not only higher prices but shortages here and elsewhere as stocks are reallocated and redistributed - leading to huge economic damage to the global and US economy.

That obviously impacts us - until maybe we revert to a system of oil and other vital resources not done under a market-driven global commodity system, but where each nation locks up its own supply and contracted price from agreeable suppliers.

Apples and oranges. You're comparing the cost of killing Qaddafi to the cost of the entire Iraq conflict to date. The honest comparison would be between the cost of Libya thus far and the cost of the Iraq war from 3/20/2003 (when we invaded) through 12/13/2003 (when we apprehended Hussein).

The latter would still be more expensive, obviously -- but nowhere near the costs you cite. You appear to be assuming that the United States will now pack up and leave and let Libyans fight it out among themselves. Maybe we will, but if we do then I really have to wonder why we bothered killing Qaddafi at all.

In the dead dictator pool, the smart money is on Assad, but Chavez has a definite shot.... There's something unsatisfying about dictators who die of natural causes. Qaddafi's death was quite fulfilling. All in all the best dictator death since Mussolini. He gets bonus points for being dragged from a sewage ditch. I love it when reality lays on the obvious symbolism.